Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
My shock is that one views a guidance that promotes a culture of life as a possible heresy. We have to be careful with that type thought, or we risk picking apart all guidance according to our worldly view. Also, where is the voice of the Church that supports no more controls, which would be opposite of ‘heretical.’
Click to expand...
The bishop is expressing his opinion on policy - I disagree with the Bishop. Isn’t that okay?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Kind of hard to find out if gun control notions are naive or not, when some people’s answer is to throw more in the mix. :rolleyes:

As many have spoken out, I believe there is moral guidance in what the bishops say.
Click to expand...
Of course we should consider what the bishops say - but the Bishop is not necessarily an expert on the subject of gun control/2nd amendment, etc.

Ishii
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The bishops statement, just like Cardinal Dolan’s, is not political. We are Catholics first, then whatever. Also, I don’t see what the teaching is that might possibly be corrupted by ‘heretical’ clergy in your post. To be perfectly honest, I think that was a terrible thing to say about the clergy who have spoken out on this subject, especially with the lack of any clergy giving what you believe to be a ‘correct’ teaching.
Click to expand...
Firearms are not intrinsically evil themselves.

I am saying prodical son is heretical and yes all heresies the church has fought against came from the clergy. The Jesus quote about rising and falling has nothing to do with guns
 
pnewton said:
I am concerned, but not surprise, that owning guns can be considered a matter of faith and morals for someone. We have faith in God. Some may trust in Smith and Wesson.
Click to expand...
The police trust in smith and wesson. It’s different for them though. Maybe they should turn in their guns or have tighter restrictions?
 
jay29 said:
Firearms are not intrinsically evil themselves.

I am saying prodical son is heretical and yes all heresies the church has fought against came from the clergy. The Jesus quote about rising and falling has nothing to do with guns
Click to expand...
All I’ve said is that I agree with the bishop, and Cardinal Dolan.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Guns killed people in the theater, in the mall, lots of children in the school, and first responders trying to put out a fire. That’s only four instances, and not much protecting from guns there.

The teaching of the Catechism is being twisted, in my honest opinion. We have a duty to protect our families, and a right to protect ourselves; however, the Catechism speaks specifically to those with the rightful authority, such as law enforcement. It also seems no one wants to speak on other ways to protect your families, and society, which would be stricter gun controls laws.

The guns being targeted are not the only option for protecting one’s self. There are many guns not even being discussed, so it’s not as dire as some make it out to be. There are plenty more to protect with, but then I repeat myself. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Guns did not do the killing. Crazy people did the killing.

And they did the killing in places where they knew the victims would be unprotected … because the shooters CAREFULLY selected public places in advance where they knew that GUNS WERE PROHIBITED.

They had signs “this is a gun free zone” … which means for some nutcase, it is a free fire zone.

All the owners of those places had to do was REMOVE THE GUN FREE SIGNS and those shootings would not have taken place.

There were a dozen theaters to choose from, but the shooter in Aurora specifically chose the one theater that was a “gun free zone”.

That simple.

The courts have spoken: the police are not responsible for defending you. YOU are responsible for defending you.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Guns did not do the killing. Crazy people did the killing.

And they did the killing in places where they knew the victims would be unprotected … because the shooters CAREFULLY selected public places in advance where they knew that GUNS WERE PROHIBITED.

They had signs “this is a gun free zone” … which means for some nutcase, it is a free fire zone.

All the owners of those places had to do was REMOVE THE GUN FREE SIGNS and those shootings would not have taken place.

There were a dozen theaters to choose from, but the shooter in Aurora specifically chose the one theater that was a “gun free zone”.

That simple.
Click to expand...
So guns don’t kill people, but they do protect people?

Gun free zone, free fire zone, yet all these, with exception of theater, killed themselves. Not so sure about the logic.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues without attacking Catholic Clergy or other members
 
pnewton said:
I am concerned, but not surprise, that owning guns can be considered a matter of faith and morals for someone. We have faith in God. Some may trust in Smith and Wesson.
Click to expand...
That’s an ad hominem, pnewton. And uncalled for.

Ishii
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So guns don’t kill people, but they do protect people?

Gun free zone, free fire zone, yet all these, with exception of theater, killed themselves. Not so sure about the logic.
Click to expand...
A gun is an inanimate object.

Can’t do anything.

Consider the idea of “political correctness” … it is popular to denounce “guns”.

But is political correctness the right way to evaluate the morality and ethics of a situation?
 
Ridgerunner said:
I could easily see a churchman wanting there to be no guns anywhere on earth. No tanks, no war planes, no bombs, no starving people.

But there really is an underlying assumption that there are no uses for guns other than to kill people, which is not true. People who live in the countryside really are confronted with things for which one really needs a gun. And talking about what the deal is in England is not helpful in that regard, because the fauna are different.

I absolutely guarantee that if any churchman saw a child devoured by a feral hog (which feral hogs will do) or a hunter chased up a tree by feral dogs, he would not be so quick to limit either the number of cartidges a person might have in a magazine or the style of the gun the protective person had.

This entire “debate” about “assault weapons” is misplaced. What they’re really talking about are ordinary semi-automatics that resemble military rifles physically. Why do they resemble military rifles? Well, because after all sorts of testing it was determined that the configuration serves useful purposes. An AR-15, for instance, is lighter than an ordinary “semi-automatic” deer rifle. It’s easier to carry because it has a handle whereas older configurations don’t, and (of no small importance) it is automatically pointed to the ground when you carry it, which other rifles are not. The “military look” rifles are just a better design, nothing more.

As far as background checks are concerned, I have no trouble with that as long as my son can inherit my rifle without somehow having to deal with that, or I can give a rifle to my grandchild without having him go through a background check.

The creepy thing about background checks, though, is not the check, but the record. It is impossible for me to believe this administration doesn’t want to get all guns out of the hands of the populace, and there’s good reason to believe it. And the truly stupid thing about all of its current effort is that the more it tries to ban this or that, the more people (including people like me) become convinced that’s the true objective of every proposal they have.

Why was the government interested in having the identities of the “conceal and carry” permit holders in Missouri? Those people all went through thorough vetting by the state. Why did the government want to know?

The current government is disturbing in all its acts, and this just adds to it.
Click to expand...
With the greatest respect, your son or grandson have as much potential as anyone else to be or become criminals intent on harm or seriously mentally disturbed. I fail to see that they should have greater rights to own a deadly weapon than anyone else merely because they are related to you.
 
ishii said:
The bishop is expressing his opinion on policy - I disagree with the Bishop. Isn’t that okay?
Click to expand...
If we’re going to disagree with a bishop, it would be beneficial to weigh a consensus of the men of the Church on a subject, in my opinion.

The bishops address a problem, and it’s impact as ‘on the culture of life’ or ‘culture of death.’ In recognition of a problem, they don’t specify an exact approach, but leave the details to those who are expert, or have access to the research to specify; those who legislate, or interpret laws. One does not have to be an expert to recognize a problem, and I believe we all agree there is a problem; however, some don’t understand how doing nothing is a correct approach to a problem.

I have nothing against guns, but my view is based on hunting, and target shooting, and the particular guns necessary. Those same guns can provide protection. There is nothing in the constitution that protects a specific type gun. The ‘government’ is allowed to legislate, and regulate.

Guns are purchased every day through private sales, leaving the gun untraceable. Even if no guns were being considered necessary to ban, it seems most gun rights advocates are against universal background checks, and registrations. A majority of people don’t see how that prevents self defense, or encroaches on a ‘right.’ A right to bear arms must be regulated, so that that right does not infringe on another person’s right to life.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
A right to bear arms must be regulated, so that that right does not infringe on another person’s right to life.
Click to expand...
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.

It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only NOT* the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, but also it was precisely *to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
If publicity is encouraging these Celeb “Swattings” and if the police are going to stop releasing information to discourage those attacks, why can’t this police approach be employed elsewhere?

The most obvious case involves multiple victim public shootings where it is now becoming clear that even the latest Newtown attack was just another case where the killer planned his attack for over two years to get media attention.

From CBS News in LA:

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/04/11/lapd-will-no-longer-provide-info-to-media-on-celeb-swatting-pranks/

/lapd-will-no-longer-provide-info-to-media-on-celeb-swatting-pranks/
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.

It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only NOT** the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, but also it was precisely *to render the government powerless to do so *that the founders wrote it.
Click to expand...
If it truly was meant to render the government powerless we would not have any guns regulated, and we know that there are regulations already in place.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
As many have spoken out, I believe there is moral guidance in what the bishops say.
Click to expand...
Whenever a “bishop says…” story appears what immediately happens is that sides form up and the debate occurs on the merits of the positions - which is a reasonable approach. Unfortunately what gets lost is the actual topic that was raised which was about the bishop’s comments and that ought to be what the discussion is about.

So - is there moral guidance in his assertions or not?

To put it bluntly: no, not a bit of it. His personal opinion about solutions to gun violence are neither more nor less moral than those of anyone else. In fact it is not immediately obvious that they are not less so inasmuch as most of the arguments being made (here at least) are of the form “You’re position is wrong” rather than the more insulting “Your position is immoral”, which is what the bishop’s comments imply. I am disinterested in his ideas on gun control but I am annoyed by his implication concerning the reasons behind the formation of my own. I can accept being told my position is in error but there is no justification for someone to suggest my error is sinful.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Whenever a “bishop says…” story appears what immediately happens is that sides form up and the debate occurs on the merits of the positions - which is a reasonable approach. Unfortunately what gets lost is the actual topic that was raised which was about the bishop’s comments and that ought to be what the discussion is about.

So - is there moral guidance in his assertions or not?

To put it bluntly: no, not a bit of it. His personal opinion about solutions to gun violence are neither more nor less moral than those of anyone else. In fact it is not immediately obvious that they are not less so inasmuch as most of the arguments being made (here at least) are of the form “You’re position is wrong” rather than the more insulting “Your position is immoral”, which is what the bishop’s comments imply. I am disinterested in his ideas on gun control but I am annoyed by his implication concerning the reasons behind the formation of my own. I can accept being told my position is in error but there is no justification for someone to suggest my error is sinful.

Ender
Click to expand...
Actually, I can agree with this Ender. The Church guides us, and we form our faith based consciences. That’s the best any of us can do. With that said, it was not my intent to imply someone’s position, erroneous or not, as sinful.

With that said, I think we should weigh a consensus of the men of the Church’s guidance on an issue before we dismiss it as right, or wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top